Great job ending the quote right before the part that addresses the concern you just voiced. :rolleyes:
Anyway, I’m probably just giving the guy too much credit. I assume he had good reasons to think his wife was in the bed, for example, but maybe I’m wrong about that. I assume the noises he heard weren’t just noises but the clear sound of a person walking down the hall. But maybe I’m wrong about that too. I assume the guy is like my brother and is absolutely consciously meticulous about making sure his doors are locked every night–but I could be wrong about that.
I assumed a lot. So did everyone else in this thread who assumes the contrary positions.
Just to head this off before it becomes an issue, while there is compulsory military service in Switzerland for all males (and voluntary for women) a substantial fraction of those end up being logistical or non-combat positions who are not required to keep a weapon at home or undergo annual certification. Weapons and ammunition kept at home (the Sig SG 550 assault rifle for most infantry reserves) is pretty strictly controlled; it is not intended for use in personal defense, and the ammunition box is sealed and annually inspected. Active members of the reserves are required to qualify with rifle on an annual basis, but this is basic marksmanship qualification, not tactical or battlefield simulation. Gun control laws in Switzerland vary by canton, and cover the range from permissively regulated to highly restrictive. In general, private firearms ownership in Switzerland is comparable or slightly less prevalent than in the United States, although higher than in the rest of Western and Southern Europe.
Switzerland also has a more homogeneous population in terms of educational and socioeconomic opportunity and a generally higher median level of income, and thus, expectedly has a lower level of crime, so any comparison between defensive gun use in Switzerland and the United States should take this in account.
You stated that it was a “no-brainer” to fire upon an unidentified target that did not present an immediate threat or (from what we know of the story) give any indication of being in the commission of a crime. That is a gravely irresponsible position to take, and is at odds with all safety and tactical rules intended to prevent negligent and friendly fire casualties. The correct thing to do in this scenario is to take cover and issue a verbal challenge, or conceal and wait for positive identification of the presumed threat. Anyone who doesn’t understand this basic process has no business owning or carrying a firearm for defensive use.
Ignoring all the stuff in between and just answering the OP;
Yes.
Don’t give me this “punished enough” shit.
If you don’t know what you’re shooting at, YOU DON’T SHOOT. Geez, guys killing their friends and own children hunting, people killing their fiances. All complete fucking morons.
Don’t think for a minute I’m anti-gun. I’m a CCW holder and Benefactor Member of the NRA. Five times I’ve displayed a firearm to dissuade someone from breaking into my house while I was there, once in a remote wayside rest to prevent myself from being mugged, and while I was working armored, drew and displayed my weapon four times to dissuade someone from their (already initiated) thoughts about robbing me.
But you shoot someone because you were too goddamned stupid to know what you were shooting at, and I have no support or sympathy for you.
Yup, the weapon could’ve been a bow and arrow, a throwing knife or a potted begonia. The problem isn’t the fear or the gun, it’s the person who uses deadly force too quickly.
If the facts are exactly as claimed, then this is a textbook example of negligent homicide, and should be prosecuted as such. This man did not exercise the responsibility he held by virtue of ownership and use of a gun, and as a result of him not exercising his responsibility, someone ended up dead. If this isn’t negligent homicide, then what is?
Of course, that’s assuming that the facts are exactly as claimed. There’s certainly a possibility that this was not negligent homicide, but premeditated murder, and I hope and expect that the police are investigating that possibility.
Quoth Martin Hyde:
That may be, but it also means that you can’t argue for allowing guns on the utilitarian basis of self-defense, either-- I imagine that you argue for allowing gun ownership on the basis of freedom in general being a worthy goal, and that the default position of the law on any topic should be to allow it?
A post I agree with, and which, given FDR’s original statement from which FI derived his username, is a contender for “Most Ironic Username/Post Content Combo, 2009”
That wasn’t really my point. And I suppose that Switzerland wasn’t really necessary to have made it, but I would wonder if proper training reduces the number of accidental home shootings.
I’m no fan of ATVs, but I would suspect the vast majority of people suffering ATV injuries were operators or willing passengers. ATVs are not really comparable to something that inflicts deadly injuries on others by design.
Missed the edit window, but I don’t believe the OP meant this thread to be a referendum on gun control and I’m sorry if I contributed to a continuing hijack, but some people seemed awfully eager to introduce anti-gun control arguments. For the record, although I can’t prove it, I don’t believe this death would have occurred had the shooter been armed only with a pot of begonias.
To directly address the OP, people are prosecuted and convicted for mistakes and bad decisions all the time. Drunk drivers don’t set out deliberately to kill anyone, yet they are excoriated by multitudes, including people who have driven under the influence themselves and simply been luckier.
Some form of manslaughter charge seems appropriate. If convicted, prior record and expression of remorse should be mitigating factors in sentencing.
Sure. Appropriate tactical training with instill in the trainee the correct decision responses in a defensive situation. In such conditions as the wielder believes himself or herself to be in sincere danger to life and limb, higher cognitive activity becomes naturally detached from action-directing processes occurring in the midbrain, so making the right decisions in such circumstances isn’t so much being smart or rational as being sufficiently well-trained to act correctly in autonomic response and being experienced enough to exert rational control in a situation that most people would freeze or panic in.
In other words, you need to figure out how you would respond beforehand, and then train as you would fight until those responses are natural and require no conscious decision-making. Decision trees should be “If A, then B, else C” not “If it might be A then I should contemplate the results of D, E, F, G, I, pi, and the conjunction of Saturn and Neptune.” This is what modern tactical and combat training does, and it has resulted in both higher firing rates on battlefield, and a higher rate of appropriate use of force by police officers; in the past, the basic marksmanship training performed in military basic training and police training would often result in soldiers and peace officers failing to discharge their weapons even when vital to their own self-preservation, and discharging weapons wildly in panic fire. Good tactical training results in more controlled fire in appropriate circumstances.
But, again, the basic marksmanship qualification required of Swiss Army Reservists isn’t this. Nor do most police agencies require regular training and requalification under tactical scenarios. You’d have to look at combat-oriented units–like Army Rangers or Marine Ground Combat elements–or police special tactics units to see this distinction.
Basic firearm safety training will reduce purely accidental discharge of weapons from errant mishandling (provided that all persons in the household who have access to the weapons are so training) but isn’t going to contribute significantly to improved efficacy on the battlefield or tactical scenario.
Answering the OP, I believe that the proper course should be to present the full evidence about the incident to a Grand Jury (presuming this to have happened in a Grand Jury state – or to the Grand Jury-equivalent preliminary hearing elsewhere). The Grand Jury could then decide whether to bring a true bill or no bill based on the full evidence.
Based on the information at hand, I’d say that (a) charges pending Grand Jury review should be at the discretion of the prosecutor, and probably should not be filed, but the man earned not to leave the jurisdiction, and (2) unless there are exculpatory factors not yet posted, an indictment for criminally negligent homicide should result.
I don’t mind the hijack, but no, it really isn’t germaine to the question(s) I asked.
Your last 2 paragraphs are pretty much exactly in line with my own reasoning. As such, I’m perplexed as to why Mr. Tabutt wasn’t taken into custody, and what, exactly the police chief thinks he means when he called the shooting an “accident”.
To be criminal, he had to be negligent or reckless.
Let’s look at two examples:
He gets up and grabs his gun and starts walking down the hallway, nervous. Suddenly a shadow attacks him and he fires!
He gets up and grabs his gun and starts walking down the hallway, nervous. A shadow moves, he points his gun and fires.
In the first example, he is innocent. He had reason to have his weapon out and drawn, and any reasonable person would fire if suddenly a shadow seemed to lunge at them. But in the second example, he is potentially guilty of manslaughter. The shadow was not attacking him, he made no attempt to identify himself or ascertain who the shadow was, he simply opened fire based on an assumption.
The description of these two possibilities is almost identical. A minor change in wording goes from innocence to guilt. And the only evidence we have is his own description of the event. Without knowing exactly what he said, we can’t judge his guilt.
Keep in mind I’m talking about ethics and morality. Which I feel to a degree must influence one’s policy position. Owning a gun is morally and ethically neutral, and thus I cannot see a morally justifiable reason for government to restrict it.
Inflicting deadly injury on someone is not ethical, and is rightfully illegal (excepting cases of self defense, when such violence is both ethical and legal.)
It probably means that the opinion of the officers who investigated the scene don’t believe premeditated murder was what occurred. Police officers are paid to make determinations like this; and there is nothing wrong with them having an initial opinion. I do think they need to continue their investigation of course and cross all their t’s and dot their i’s so that we can be sure it wasn’t a cleverly conducted murder.
Once the police are reasonably sure they know what happened I imagine it’s more up to the prosecuting attorney to decide if they forward with charges. There are accidents and then there are accidents caused by criminal negligence. There are accidents that can kill another person and yet not be a crime. Based off the light amount of information we were given in the OP I stand by my opinion that based on the facts as I know them, the guy seemed very irresponsible to the point of what I feel is criminal negligence. However if this guy ultimately isn’t charged I won’t be outraged.
Primarily because I trust people who are professionals in the law and criminal investigations and who have first hand direct knowledge of the case over my own gut reaction.
Thanks for the advice. Am I certified now? Can I have my gun back?
ETA: In other words: Fuck, I don’t know about this kind of crap. I don’t have a gun, and don’t ever plan on having one. I’m just using my imagination. Read my other posts to see what kinds of explicit assumptions I lay out about the guy’s situation. And before you fucking talk about whether I “understand a basic process” or “have any business” doing something or not, wait and find out what would fucking happen if I did go and get the proper fucking training, you judgmental fuck. And read my posts with some goddamn charity. It’s what I do and it makes me a generally happy person. Shit! You are being an idiot today, Stranger. You usually don’t do that.